DOCSLIB.ORG

Arxiv:1704.00281V1 [Math.LO] 2 Apr 2017 Adaayi Aebe Aebfr,Eg Sfollows: As E.G

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Arxiv:1704.00281V1 [Math.LO] 2 Apr 2017 Adaayi Aebe Aebfr,Eg Sfollows: As E.G NONSTANDARD ANALYSIS AND CONSTRUCTIVISM! SAM SANDERS Abstract. Almost two decades ago, Wattenberg published a paper with the title Nonstandard Analysis and Constructivism? in which he speculates on a possible connection between Nonstandard Analysis and constructive mathe- matics. We study Wattenberg’s work in light of recent research on the afore- mentioned connection. On one hand, with only slight modification, some of Wattenberg’s theorems in Nonstandard Analysis are seen to yield effective and constructive theorems (not involving Nonstandard Analysis). On the other hand, we establish the incorrectness of some of Wattenberg’s (explicit and implicit) claims regarding the constructive status of the axioms Transfer and Standard Part of Nonstandard Analysis. 1. Introduction The introduction of Wattenberg’s paper [37] includes the following statement: This is a speculative paper. For some time the author has been struck by an apparent affinity between two rather unlikely areas of mathematics - nonstandard analysis and constructivism. [. ] The purpose of this paper is to investigate these ideas by examining several examples. ([37, p. 303]) In a nutshell, the aim of this paper is to study Wattenberg’s results in light of recent results on the computational content of Nonstandard Analysis as in [28–31]. First of all, similar observations concerning the constructive content of Nonstan- dard Analysis have been made before, e.g. as follows: It has often been held that nonstandard analysis is highly non- constructive, thus somewhat suspect, depending as it does upon the ultrapower construction to produce a model [. ] On the other hand, nonstandard praxis is remarkably constructive; having the arXiv:1704.00281v1 [math.LO] 2 Apr 2017 extended number set we can proceed with explicit calculations. (Emphasis in original: [1, p. 31]) Like-minded statements may be found in [9, 11, 21–25, 32, 34, 36, 38]. The reader may interpret the word constructive as the mainstream/classical notion ‘effective’, or as the foundational notion from Bishop’s Constructive Analysis ([5]). As will become clear, both cases will be treated below (and separated carefully). However, Wattenberg goes further than most of the aforementioned authors by making the following important observation. Munich Center for Mathematical Philosophy, LMU Munich, Germany & Department of Mathematics, Ghent University E-mail address: [email protected]. Key words and phrases. Nonstandard Analysis, constructive mathematics, computational content. 2 NONSTANDARD ANALYSIS AND CONSTRUCTIVISM! Despite an essential nonconstructive kernel, many nonstandard ar- guments are constructive until the final step, a step that frequently involves the standard part map. ([37, p. 303]) This observation is similar to Osswald’s local constructivity. In particular, Osswald has qualified the observation from the above quotes as Nonstandard Analysis is locally constructive, to be understood as the fact that the mathematics performed in the nonstandard world is highly constructive1. By contrast, the nonstandard axioms (Transfer and Standard Part) needed to ‘jump between’ the nonstandard world and usual mathematics, are highly non-constructive in general. Osswald discusses local constructivity in [38, 7], [21, 1-2], or [22, 17.5]. § § § The results in [28–31] vindicate the Wattenberg and Osswald view in that com- putational content is extracted from theorems of ‘pure’ Nonstandard Analysis, i.e. formulated solely with the nonstandard definitions (of continuity, Riemann integra- tion, compactness, et cetera) rather than the ‘ε-δ’ definitions. With this choice, one only works in the nonstandard universe, avoiding the non-constructive step from and to the standard/usual universe (requiring Transfer and Standard Part). In this paper, we show that Wattenberg’s results from [37] yield effective and constructive results with only slight modification. However, we also establish the incorrectness of Wattenberg’s claims regarding the constructive status of the non- standard axioms Transfer and Standard Part. In contrast to Wattenberg, we shall work in Nelson’s axiomatic approach to Nonstandard Analysis (See Section 2), but this change of framework will have no real impact on our results or Wattenberg’s. 2. Internal set theory and its fragments In this section, we discuss Nelson’s internal set theory, first introduced in [18], and its fragments P and H from [3]. The latter fragments are essential to our enterprise, especially Theorem 2.4 below. 2.1. Internal set theory 101. In Nelson’s syntactic approach to Nonstandard Analysis ([18]), as opposed to Robinson’s semantic one ([26]), a new predicate ‘st(x)’, read as ‘x is standard’ is added to the language of ZFC, the usual foundation of mathematics. The notations ( stx) and ( sty) are short for ( x)(st(x) ... ) and ( y)(st(y) ... ). A formula∀ is called internal∃ if it does not∀ involve ‘st’,→ and external∃ otherwise.∧ The three external axioms Idealisation, Standard Part, and Transfer govern the new predicate ‘st’. These axioms are respectively defined2 as: (I) ( st finx)( y)( z x)ϕ(z,y) ( y)( stx)ϕ(x, y), for internal ϕ. (S) (∀stx)( st∃y)( ∀stz)∈(z x ϕ→(z))∃ z∀ y , for any ϕ. ∀ ∃ ∀ ∈ ∧ ↔ ∈ (T) ( stt) ( stx)ϕ(x, t) ( x)ϕ(x, t) , where ϕ(x, t) is internal, and only has free∀ variables∀ t, x. → ∀ The system IST is (the internal system) ZFC extended with the aforementioned external axioms; The former is a conservative extension of ZFC for the internal language, as proved in [18]. Clearly, the extension from ZFC to IST can be done for other systems, and we are interested in the formalisations of (classical and 1The mathematics performed in the nonstandard world usually amounts to merely manipulat- ing sums and products of nonstandard length. 2The superscript ‘fin’ in (I) means that x is finite, i.e. its number of elements are bounded by a natural number. NONSTANDARD ANALYSIS AND CONSTRUCTIVISM! 3 intuitionistic) arithmetic, namely Peano and Heyting arithmetic. In this regard, the systems H and P from [3], also sketched in the next sections, are nonstandard extensions of the (internal) logical systems E-HAω and E-PAω, respectively Heyting and Peano arithmetic in all finite types and the axiom of extensionality. We refer to [12, 3.3] for the exact definitions of the (mainstream in mathematical logic) systems§E-HAω and E-PAω. 2.2. The classical system P. In this section, we introduce the system P, a con- servative extension of Peano arithmetic with fragments of Nelson’s IST. ω ω To this end, recall that E-PA ∗ and E-HA ∗ are the definitional extensions of E-PAω and E-HAω with types for finite sequences, as in [3, 2]. For the former systems, we require some notation. § ω ω Notation 2.1 (Finite sequences). The systems E-PA ∗ and E-HA ∗ have a dedi- cated type for ‘finite sequences of objects of type ρ’, namely ρ∗. Since the usual coding of pairs of numbers goes through in both, we shall not always distinguish ρ ρ between 0 and 0∗. Similarly, we do not always distinguish between ‘s ’ and ‘ s ’, where the former is ‘the object s of type ρ’, and the latter is ‘the sequence ofh typei ρ ρ∗ with only element s ’. The empty sequence for the type ρ∗ is denoted by ‘ ρ’, usually with the typing omitted. Furthermore, we denote by ‘ s = n’ the lengthhi of ∗ ρ ρ ρ ρ | | the finite sequence s = s0,s1,...,sn 1 , where = 0, i.e. the empty sequence h ∗ ∗ − i |hi| has length zero. For sequences sρ ,tρ , we denote by ‘s t’ the concatenation of s and t, i.e. (s t)(i)= s(i) for i< s and (s t)(j)= t( s ∗ j) for s j < s + t . ∗ ∗ | | ∗ | |− | |≤ | | | | For a sequence sρ , we define sN := s(0),s(1),...,s(N) for N 0 < s . For a 0 ρ h i 0| | sequence α → , we also write αN = α(0), α(1),...,α(N) for any N . By way ∗ ρ ρ h i of shorthand, q Q abbreviates ( i < Q )(Q(i) =ρ q). Finally, we shall use ∈ σ0 σ∃k | | x,y,t,... as short for tuples x0 ,...xk of possibly different type σi. ω We can now introduce E-PAst∗. We use the same definition as [3, Def. 6.1], where ω ω E-PA ∗ is the definitional extension of E-PA with types for finite sequences from ω [3, 2]. The set ∗ is the collection of all the terms in the language of E-PA ∗. § T ω ω st Definition 2.2. The system E-PAst∗ is defined as E-PA ∗ + st∗ + IA , where st∗ consists of the following basic axiom schemas. T T (1) The schema3 st(x) x = y st(y), ∧ → 4 (2) The schema providing for each closed term t ∗ the axiom st(t). (3) The schema st(f) st(x) st(f(x)). ∈ T ∧ → The external induction axiom IAst is as follows. Φ(0) ( stn0)(Φ(n) Φ(n + 1)) ( stn0)Φ(n). (IAst) ∧ ∀ → → ∀ Secondly, we introduce some essential fragments of IST studied in [3]. Definition 2.3. [External axioms of P] 3 ω∗ The language of E-PAst contains a symbol stσ for each finite type σ, but the subscript is ∗ essentially always omitted. Hence Tst is an axiom schema and not an axiom. 4A term is called closed in [3] (and in this paper) if all variables are bound via lambda ab- straction. Thus, if x,y are the only variables occurring in the term t, the term (λx)(λy)t(x,y) is closed while (λx)t(x,y) is not. The second axiom in Definition 2.2 thus expresses that stτ (λx)(λy)t(x,y) if (λx)(λy)t(x,y) is of type τ. We usually omit lambda abstraction for brevity. 4 NONSTANDARD ANALYSIS AND CONSTRUCTIVISM! (1) HACint: For any internal formula ϕ, we have ∗ st ρ st τ st ρ τ st ρ τ ( x )( y )ϕ(x, y) F → ( x )( y F (x))ϕ(x, y), (2.1) ∀ ∃ → ∃ ∀ ∃ ∈ (2) I: For any internal formula ϕ, we have ∗ ( stxσ )( yτ )( zσ x)ϕ(z,y) ( yτ )( stxσ)ϕ(x, y), ∀ ∃ ∀ ∈ → ∃ ∀ ω (3) The system P is E-PAst∗ + I + HACint.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Actual Infinitesimals in Leibniz's Early Thought
    Actual Infinitesimals in Leibniz’s Early Thought By RICHARD T. W. ARTHUR (HAMILTON, ONTARIO) Abstract Before establishing his mature interpretation of infinitesimals as fictions, Gottfried Leibniz had advocated their existence as actually existing entities in the continuum. In this paper I trace the development of these early attempts, distinguishing three distinct phases in his interpretation of infinitesimals prior to his adopting a fictionalist interpretation: (i) (1669) the continuum consists of assignable points separated by unassignable gaps; (ii) (1670-71) the continuum is composed of an infinity of indivisible points, or parts smaller than any assignable, with no gaps between them; (iii) (1672- 75) a continuous line is composed not of points but of infinitely many infinitesimal lines, each of which is divisible and proportional to a generating motion at an instant (conatus). In 1676, finally, Leibniz ceased to regard infinitesimals as actual, opting instead for an interpretation of them as fictitious entities which may be used as compendia loquendi to abbreviate mathematical reasonings. Introduction Gottfried Leibniz’s views on the status of infinitesimals are very subtle, and have led commentators to a variety of different interpretations. There is no proper common consensus, although the following may serve as a summary of received opinion: Leibniz developed the infinitesimal calculus in 1675-76, but during the ensuing twenty years was content to refine its techniques and explore the richness of its applications in co-operation with Johann and Jakob Bernoulli, Pierre Varignon, de l’Hospital and others, without worrying about the ontic status of infinitesimals. Only after the criticisms of Bernard Nieuwentijt and Michel Rolle did he turn himself to the question of the foundations of the calculus and 2 Richard T.
    [Show full text]
  • Connes on the Role of Hyperreals in Mathematics
    Found Sci DOI 10.1007/s10699-012-9316-5 Tools, Objects, and Chimeras: Connes on the Role of Hyperreals in Mathematics Vladimir Kanovei · Mikhail G. Katz · Thomas Mormann © Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012 Abstract We examine some of Connes’ criticisms of Robinson’s infinitesimals starting in 1995. Connes sought to exploit the Solovay model S as ammunition against non-standard analysis, but the model tends to boomerang, undercutting Connes’ own earlier work in func- tional analysis. Connes described the hyperreals as both a “virtual theory” and a “chimera”, yet acknowledged that his argument relies on the transfer principle. We analyze Connes’ “dart-throwing” thought experiment, but reach an opposite conclusion. In S, all definable sets of reals are Lebesgue measurable, suggesting that Connes views a theory as being “vir- tual” if it is not definable in a suitable model of ZFC. If so, Connes’ claim that a theory of the hyperreals is “virtual” is refuted by the existence of a definable model of the hyperreal field due to Kanovei and Shelah. Free ultrafilters aren’t definable, yet Connes exploited such ultrafilters both in his own earlier work on the classification of factors in the 1970s and 80s, and in Noncommutative Geometry, raising the question whether the latter may not be vulnera- ble to Connes’ criticism of virtuality. We analyze the philosophical underpinnings of Connes’ argument based on Gödel’s incompleteness theorem, and detect an apparent circularity in Connes’ logic. We document the reliance on non-constructive foundational material, and specifically on the Dixmier trace − (featured on the front cover of Connes’ magnum opus) V.
    [Show full text]
  • Isomorphism Property in Nonstandard Extensions of the ZFC Universe'
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Elsevier - Publisher Connector ANNALS OF PURE AND APPLIED LOGIC Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 88 (1997) l-25 Isomorphism property in nonstandard extensions of the ZFC universe’ Vladimir Kanoveia, *,2, Michael Reekenb aDepartment of Mathematics, Moscow Transport Engineering Institute, Obraztsova 15, Moscow 101475, Russia b Fachbereich Mathematik. Bergische Universitiit GHS Wuppertal, Gauss Strasse 20, Wuppertal 42097, Germany Received 27 April 1996; received in revised form 5 February 1997; accepted 6 February 1997 Communicated by T. Jech Abstract We study models of HST (a nonstandard set theory which includes, in particular, the Re- placement and Separation schemata of ZFC in the language containing the membership and standardness predicates, and Saturation for well-orderable families of internal sets). This theory admits an adequate formulation of the isomorphism property IP, which postulates that any two elementarily equivalent internally presented structures of a well-orderable language are isomor- phic. We prove that IP is independent of HST (using the class of all sets constructible from internal sets) and consistent with HST (using generic extensions of a constructible model of HST by a sufficient number of generic isomorphisms). Keywords: Isomorphism property; Nonstandard set theory; Constructibility; Generic extensions 0. Introduction This article is a continuation of the authors’ series of papers [12-151 devoted to set theoretic foundations of nonstandard mathematics. Our aim is to accomodate an * Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]. ’ Expanded version of a talk presented at the Edinburg Meeting on Nonstandard Analysis (Edinburg, August 1996).
    [Show full text]
  • Fundamental Theorems in Mathematics
    SOME FUNDAMENTAL THEOREMS IN MATHEMATICS OLIVER KNILL Abstract. An expository hitchhikers guide to some theorems in mathematics. Criteria for the current list of 243 theorems are whether the result can be formulated elegantly, whether it is beautiful or useful and whether it could serve as a guide [6] without leading to panic. The order is not a ranking but ordered along a time-line when things were writ- ten down. Since [556] stated “a mathematical theorem only becomes beautiful if presented as a crown jewel within a context" we try sometimes to give some context. Of course, any such list of theorems is a matter of personal preferences, taste and limitations. The num- ber of theorems is arbitrary, the initial obvious goal was 42 but that number got eventually surpassed as it is hard to stop, once started. As a compensation, there are 42 “tweetable" theorems with included proofs. More comments on the choice of the theorems is included in an epilogue. For literature on general mathematics, see [193, 189, 29, 235, 254, 619, 412, 138], for history [217, 625, 376, 73, 46, 208, 379, 365, 690, 113, 618, 79, 259, 341], for popular, beautiful or elegant things [12, 529, 201, 182, 17, 672, 673, 44, 204, 190, 245, 446, 616, 303, 201, 2, 127, 146, 128, 502, 261, 172]. For comprehensive overviews in large parts of math- ematics, [74, 165, 166, 51, 593] or predictions on developments [47]. For reflections about mathematics in general [145, 455, 45, 306, 439, 99, 561]. Encyclopedic source examples are [188, 705, 670, 102, 192, 152, 221, 191, 111, 635].
    [Show full text]
  • Infinitesimals
    Infinitesimals: History & Application Joel A. Tropp Plan II Honors Program, WCH 4.104, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712 Abstract. An infinitesimal is a number whose magnitude ex- ceeds zero but somehow fails to exceed any finite, positive num- ber. Although logically problematic, infinitesimals are extremely appealing for investigating continuous phenomena. They were used extensively by mathematicians until the late 19th century, at which point they were purged because they lacked a rigorous founda- tion. In 1960, the logician Abraham Robinson revived them by constructing a number system, the hyperreals, which contains in- finitesimals and infinitely large quantities. This thesis introduces Nonstandard Analysis (NSA), the set of techniques which Robinson invented. It contains a rigorous de- velopment of the hyperreals and shows how they can be used to prove the fundamental theorems of real analysis in a direct, natural way. (Incredibly, a great deal of the presentation echoes the work of Leibniz, which was performed in the 17th century.) NSA has also extended mathematics in directions which exceed the scope of this thesis. These investigations may eventually result in fruitful discoveries. Contents Introduction: Why Infinitesimals? vi Chapter 1. Historical Background 1 1.1. Overview 1 1.2. Origins 1 1.3. Continuity 3 1.4. Eudoxus and Archimedes 5 1.5. Apply when Necessary 7 1.6. Banished 10 1.7. Regained 12 1.8. The Future 13 Chapter 2. Rigorous Infinitesimals 15 2.1. Developing Nonstandard Analysis 15 2.2. Direct Ultrapower Construction of ∗R 17 2.3. Principles of NSA 28 2.4. Working with Hyperreals 32 Chapter 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:1204.2193V2 [Math.GM] 13 Jun 2012
    Alternative Mathematics without Actual Infinity ∗ Toru Tsujishita 2012.6.12 Abstract An alternative mathematics based on qualitative plurality of finite- ness is developed to make non-standard mathematics independent of infinite set theory. The vague concept \accessibility" is used coherently within finite set theory whose separation axiom is restricted to defi- nite objective conditions. The weak equivalence relations are defined as binary relations with sorites phenomena. Continua are collection with weak equivalence relations called indistinguishability. The points of continua are the proper classes of mutually indistinguishable ele- ments and have identities with sorites paradox. Four continua formed by huge binary words are examined as a new type of continua. Ascoli- Arzela type theorem is given as an example indicating the feasibility of treating function spaces. The real numbers are defined to be points on linear continuum and have indefiniteness. Exponentiation is introduced by the Euler style and basic properties are established. Basic calculus is developed and the differentiability is captured by the behavior on a point. Main tools of Lebesgue measure theory is obtained in a similar way as Loeb measure. Differences from the current mathematics are examined, such as the indefiniteness of natural numbers, qualitative plurality of finiteness, mathematical usage of vague concepts, the continuum as a primary inexhaustible entity and the hitherto disregarded aspect of \internal measurement" in mathematics. arXiv:1204.2193v2 [math.GM] 13 Jun 2012 ∗Thanks to Ritsumeikan University for the sabbathical leave which allowed the author to concentrate on doing research on this theme. 1 2 Contents Abstract 1 Contents 2 0 Introdution 6 0.1 Nonstandard Approach as a Genuine Alternative .
    [Show full text]
  • Nonstandard Analysis and Vector Lattices Managing Editor
    Nonstandard Analysis and Vector Lattices Managing Editor: M. HAZEWINKEL Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science, Amsterdam, The Netherlands Volume 525 Nonstandard Analysis and Vector Lattices Edited by S.S. Kutateladze Sobolev Institute of Mathematics. Siberian Division of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Novosibirsk. Russia SPRINGER-SCIENCE+BUSINESS MEDIA, B. V. A C.LP. Catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. ISBN 978-94-010-5863-6 ISBN 978-94-011-4305-9 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-94-011-4305-9 This is an updated translation of the original Russian work. Nonstandard Analysis and Vector Lattices, A.E. Gutman, \'E.Yu. Emelyanov, A.G. Kusraev and S.S. Kutateladze. Novosibirsk, Sobolev Institute Press, 1999. The book was typeset using AMS-TeX. Printed an acid-free paper AII Rights Reserved ©2000 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht Originally published by Kluwer Academic Publishers in 2000 No part of the material protected by this copyright notice may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission from the copyright owner. Contents Foreword ix Chapter 1. Nonstandard Methods and Kantorovich Spaces (A. G. Kusraev and S. S. Kutateladze) 1 § 1.l. Zermelo-Fraenkel Set·Theory 5 § l.2. Boolean Valued Set Theory 7 § l.3. Internal and External Set Theories 12 § 1.4. Relative Internal Set Theory 18 § l.5. Kantorovich Spaces 23 § l.6. Reals Inside Boolean Valued Models 26 § l.7. Functional Calculus in Kantorovich Spaces 30 § l.8.
    [Show full text]
  • Infinitesimal Methods in Mathematical Economics
    Infinitesimal Methods in Mathematical Economics Robert M. Anderson1 Department of Economics and Department of Mathematics University of California at Berkeley Berkeley, CA 94720, U.S.A. and Department of Economics Johns Hopkins University Baltimore, MD 21218, U.S.A. January 20, 2008 1The author is grateful to Marc Bettz¨uge, Don Brown, Hung- Wen Chang, G´erard Debreu, Eddie Dekel-Tabak, Greg Engl, Dmitri Ivanov, Jerry Keisler, Peter Loeb, Paul MacMillan, Mike Magill, Andreu Mas-Colell, Max Stinchcombe, Cathy Wein- berger and Bill Zame for their helpful comments. Financial sup- port from Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Gottfried-Wilhelm- Leibniz-F¨orderpreis is gratefully acknowledged. Contents 0Preface v 1 Nonstandard Analysis Lite 1 1.1 When is Nonstandard Analysis Useful? . 1 1.1.1 Large Economies . 2 1.1.2 Continuum of Random Variables . 4 1.1.3 Searching For Elementary Proofs . 4 1.2IdealElements................. 5 1.3Ultraproducts.................. 6 1.4InternalandExternalSets........... 9 1.5NotationalConventions............. 11 1.6StandardModels................ 12 1.7 Superstructure Embeddings . 14 1.8AFormalLanguage............... 16 1.9TransferPrinciple................ 16 1.10Saturation.................... 18 1.11InternalDefinitionPrinciple.......... 19 1.12 Nonstandard Extensions, or Enough Already with the Ultraproducts . 20 1.13HyperfiniteSets................. 21 1.14 Nonstandard Theorems Have Standard Proofs 22 2 Nonstandard Analysis Regular 23 2.1 Warning: Do Not Read this Chapter . 23 i ii CONTENTS 2.2AFormalLanguage............... 23 2.3 Extensions of L ................. 25 2.4 Assigning Truth Value to Formulas . 28 2.5 Interpreting Formulas in Superstructure Em- beddings..................... 32 2.6TransferPrinciple................ 33 2.7InternalDefinitionPrinciple.......... 34 2.8NonstandardExtensions............ 35 2.9TheExternalLanguage............. 36 2.10TheConservationPrinciple.......... 37 3RealAnalysis 39 3.1Monads..................... 39 3.2OpenandClosedSets............. 44 3.3Compactness.................
    [Show full text]
  • Nonstandard Methods in Ramsey Theory and Combinatorial Number Theory
    Mauro Di Nasso, Isaac Goldbring, and Martino Lupini Nonstandard Methods in Ramsey Theory and Combinatorial Number Theory August 7, 2017 Springer To... Acknowledgements To be filled in later... vi Introduction Generally speaking, Ramsey theory studies which combinatorial configurations of a structure are can always be found in one of the pieces of a given finite partition. More generally, it considers the problem of which combinatorial configurations can be found in sets that are “large” in some suitable sense. Dating back to the foundational results of van der Waerden, Ramsey, Erdos,˝ Turan´ and others from the 1920s and 1930s, Ramsey theory has since then had an extraordinary development. On the one had, many applications of Ramsey theory have been found to numerous other areas of mathematics, ranging from functional analysis, topology, and dynamics, to set theory, model theory, and computer science. On the other hand, results and methods from other areas of mathematics have been successfully applied to establish new results in Ramsey theory. For instance, ergodic theory and the theory of recurrence in measurable dynamics has had a huge impact on Ramsey theory, to the point of giving rise to the research area of “ergodic Ramsey theory.” Perhaps the best known achievement of this approach is the ergodic-theoretic proof of Szemeredi’s´ theorem due to Furstenberg in the 1980s. In a different (but intimately related) direction, the theory of ultrafilters has been an important source of methods and ideas for Ramsey theory. In particular, the study of topological and algebraic properties of the space of ultrafilters has been used to give short and elegant proofs of deep combinatorial pigeonhole principles.
    [Show full text]
  • Who Gave You the Cauchy-Weierstrass Tale? The
    WHO GAVE YOU THE CAUCHY–WEIERSTRASS TALE? THE DUAL HISTORY OF RIGOROUS CALCULUS ALEXANDRE BOROVIK AND MIKHAIL G. KATZ0 Abstract. Cauchy’s contribution to the foundations of analysis is often viewed through the lens of developments that occurred some decades later, namely the formalisation of analysis on the basis of the epsilon-delta doctrine in the context of an Archimedean con- tinuum. What does one see if one refrains from viewing Cauchy as if he had read Weierstrass already? One sees, with Felix Klein, a parallel thread for the development of analysis, in the context of an infinitesimal-enriched continuum. One sees, with Emile Borel, the seeds of the theory of rates of growth of functions as devel- oped by Paul du Bois-Reymond. One sees, with E. G. Bj¨orling, an infinitesimal definition of the criterion of uniform convergence. Cauchy’s foundational stance is hereby reconsidered. Contents 1. Introduction 2 2. A reappraisal of Cauchy’s foundational stance 4 2.1. Cauchy’s theory of orders of infinitesimals 4 2.2. How does a null sequence become a Cauchy infinitesimal? 8 2.3. An analysis of Cours d’Analyse and its infinitesimals 11 2.4. Microcontinuity and Cauchy’s sum theorem 14 2.5. Five common misconceptions in the Cauchy literature 16 arXiv:1108.2885v3 [math.HO] 16 Oct 2012 3. Comments by modern authors 18 3.1. Gilain’s limit 18 3.2. Felscher’s Bestiarium infinitesimale 19 3.3. D’Alembert or de La Chapelle? 24 3.4. Brillou¨et-Belluot: epsilon-delta, period 25 3.5.
    [Show full text]
  • Archiv Für Mathema- Tische Logik Und Grundlagenforschung, 6, 7–29
    INFINITESIMALPROBABILITIES Sylvia Wenmackers 5 Suppose that a dart is thrown, using the unit interval as a target; then what is the probability of hitting a point? Clearly this probability cannot be a positive real number, yet to say that it is zero violates the intuitive feeling that, after all, there is some chance of hitting the point. —Bernstein and Wattenberg (1969, p. 171) It has been said that to assume that 0 + 0 + 0 + ... + 0 + ... = 1 is absurd, whereas, if at all, this would be true if ‘actual infinitesimal’ were substituted in place of zero. —de Finetti (1974, p. 347) Infinitesimals played an important role in the seventeenth century devel- opment of the calculus by Leibniz and—to a lesser extent—by Newton. In the twentieth century, calculus was applied to probability theory. By this time, however, Leibnizian infinitesimals had lost their prominence in mainstream calculus, such that “infinitesimal probability” did not become a central concept in mainstream probability theory either. Meanwhile, non- standard analysis (NSA) has been developed by Abraham Robinson, an alternative approach to the calculus, in which infinitesimals (in the sense of Equation 1 below) are given mathematically consistent foundations. This provides us with an interesting framework to investigate the notion of infinitesimal probabilities, as we will do in this chapter. Even taken separately, both infinitesimals and probabilities constitute major topics in philosophy and related fields. Infinitesimals are numbers that are infinitely small or extremely minute. The history of non-zero in- finitesimals is a troubled one: despite their crucial role in the development of the calculus, they were long believed to be based on an inconsistent concept.
    [Show full text]
  • The Method of Adequality from Diophantus to Fermat and Beyond
    Almost Equal: the Method of Adequality from Diophantus to Fermat and Beyond Mikhail G. Katz, David M. Schaps, and Steven Shnider Bar Ilan University We analyze some of the main approaches in the literature to the method of ‘adequality’ with which Fermat approached the problems of the calculus, as well as its source in the parisâth§ of Diophantus, and propose a novel read- ing thereof. Adequality is a crucial step in Fermat’s method of ªnding max- ima, minima, tangents, and solving other problems that a modern mathema- tician would solve using inªnitesimal calculus. The method is presented in a series of short articles in Fermat’s collected works (Tannery and Henry 1981, pp. 133–172). We show that at least some of the manifestations of adequality amount to variational techniques exploiting a small, or inªn- itesimal, variation e. Fermat’s treatment of geometric and physical applica- tions suggests that an aspect of approximation is inherent in adequality, as well as an aspect of smallness on the part of e. We question the relevance to understanding Fermat of 19th century dictionary deªnitions of parisâth§ and adaequare, cited by Breger, and take issue with his interpretation of adequality, including his novel reading of Diophantus, and his hypothesis concerning alleged tampering with Fermat’s texts by Carcavy. We argue that Fermat relied on Bachet’s reading of Diophantus. Diophantus coined the term parisâth§ for mathematical purposes and used it to refer to the way in which 1321/711 is approximately equal to 11/6. Bachet performed a se- mantic calque in passing from parisoo to adaequo.
    [Show full text]